Professional engineer Jon Cole cuts steel columns with thermate, debunks Nat Geo & unexpectedly repr

Originally posted by Malcram
The quote you disputed wasn't discussing "all the physics", it was regarding an aspect of the physics - an inviolable aspect, which cannot be negated or avoided no matter how "complex" the circumstances of a collapse.

Don't you get that?

And what is that?

Do you know what the electromagnetic force is? Did you know it's also inviolable? Do you realize that it's the same force that keeps all matter from going straight through other pieces of matter, that provides friction, structural stability, and determines a "path of least resistance"? Did you know that of the 4 fundamental forces science recognizes, gravity is the weakest?

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by pteridine

 

Since you are open to suggestions...i was thinking about what you were saying about the Explosion necessarily having been heard...

Explosions necessarily were heard when you aren't ignoring scores of witness testimonies.

"pteridine" knows better than this, but like Soloist, he also enjoys catch 22's, this time being something along the lines of "I know people heard explosions, but they could have been caused by anything! Where are the explosions that were caused by explosives!"

reply to post by bsbray11


Well BS i am going to slightly disagree with you here...the only force acting on the collapse is gravity...and i understand what your saying....but i dont want it to get twisted...the Explosive factor is what removes all resistance ....just as in all controlled demolitions it is actually gravity which is the force acting upon the mass....but that is just semantics...your point is very valid...because in the case of the towers and building seven there wasn't any noticabe resistance to the falling mass.

Note: I am on your side....

Originally posted by bsbray11

Do you know what the electromagnetic force is? Did you know it's also inviolable? Do you realize that it's the same force that keeps all matter from going straight through other pieces of matter, that provides friction, structural stability, and determines a "path of least resistance"? Did you know that of the 4 fundamental forces science recognizes, gravity is the weakest?

Yep. And those forces render the O.S. quite impossible.

reply to post by Malcram


What physics are you talking about? I haven't seen any physics as of yet, just someone claiming the physics are simple and make it impossible. Should I really accept anyones word for it? No, I require to see it. I am not a gullible layman like you, I am an engineer myself. I don't need totally dumbed down Youtube videos in order to "understand" something. Those kind of explanations hardly give any insight at all. I required a scientific study that includes the physics. Granted, I may not understand it all, but at least the person making the claims shows he has an understanding of the subject himself, making his word a bit more credible. Or he shows he doesn't have a clue of course.

reply to post by bsbray11


LOL BS...I would also like to point out Malcram is also in agreement here....and was very logically worded...thanks Malcram

reply to post by bsbray11


Of course thermate could initiate it. So could hacksaws, die grinders, sockets to unbolt joints, and steel cutting lasers. There doesn't seem to be any evidence for any of these but they could do it. To be consistent with the evidence, an initiator should cause a wall to bow inward immediately before collapse, either as cause or effect.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Malcram

 

What physics are you talking about?

I was quoting your post. So apparently you don't even know what aspect of physics you are talking about.

Why am I not surprised?

What don't you understand (as an "engineer", of course, not a "gullible layman") about the fact that:

"the structure below will..Resist the falling mass"

This isn't debatable. As an "engineer" you should know this.

Originally posted by plube
Well BS i am going to slightly disagree with you here...the only force acting on the collapse is gravity...and i understand what your saying....but i dont want it to get twisted...the Explosive factor is what removes all resistance ....just as in all controlled demolitions it is actually gravity which is the force acting upon the mass....but that is just semantics...your point is very valid...because in the case of the towers and building seven there wasn't any noticabe resistance to the falling mass.

Wherever there is any resistance though, it's a direct result of the EM force or more specifically friction. All I'm trying to point out is that gravity would not be unchecked in a natural scenario, which is why any building is physically able to stand and resist gravity so well in the first place.

reply to post by -PLB-


Well now PLB last time we talked in a thread about 9/11 you said you were a mathematics professor....and i provided you with the mathematical calculations from Bazant report...which i never got a rely back off of...so now you have given me a mission to go back through some postings and i will find that quote.
Now i have always stated exactly what i am...and i have not changed what i say...and i am consistant in my explanations....and in this very same thread was an areonautics engineer that was trying to say i am not what i am and i did not change my way or get abusive..he asked for some info on why i was using certain terminology...and i presented it to him...and the basic physics of it is fairly simple...we have the force of gravity acting upon a mass that supposedly plummeted through 80 floors of structure with almost no resistance.

reply to post by Malcram


So you can't show it to be true using physics, this is one of those things you either just know or don't know. It is a gift really, only special people have it. Most of the most brilliant scientists miss this gift though, and are stupid enough to think there is no obvious reason to assume the structure will resist the mass.

reply to post by bsbray11


Cheers for that BS....and yes if we do break down the pure basics you are right...and cheers for the reply...always nice to have civility when talking to people.

Originally posted by pteridine
Of course thermate could initiate it. So could hacksaws, die grinders, sockets to unbolt joints, and steel cutting lasers. There doesn't seem to be any evidence for any of these but they could do it.

There any evidence that fire and plane damage alone did it either, that would meet your own demands from us.

To be consistent with the evidence, an initiator should cause a wall to bow inward immediately before collapse, either as cause or effect.

That would happen anyway if the core structure was compromised in any point around those floors. The hat truss would try to redistribute all of those loads on the perimeter columns, which would begin to fold in on themselves wherever they were weakest, unless you think the perimeter columns could support all of the building loads while damaged.

On the other hand, NIST's proposed mechanisms, of the trusses sagging and then somehow exerting more force to pull the columns inward, was not only never demonstrated but doesn't even make sense. When steel gets hot and sags like that it doesn't effectively become heavier too.

Originally posted by plube
LOL BS...I would also like to point out Malcram is also in agreement here....and was very logically worded...thanks Malcram

Yeah, something somebody said on the last page threw me off. Anyway I think I've already caught back up with you guys.

Nice talking with you too.

Originally posted by plube
Well now PLB last time we talked in a thread about 9/11 you said you were a mathematics professor....and i provided you with the mathematical calculations from Bazant report...which i never got a rely back off of...so now you have given me a mission to go back through some postings and i will find that quote.

I am sorry but I can't remember our previous conversation. I said I was a mathematics professor? Where on earth did you get that from? Indeed, show me the post and I will reply to it.

Now i have always stated exactly what i am...and i have not changed what i say...and i am consistant in my explaniations....and in this very same thread was an areonautics engineer that was trying to say i am not what i am and i did not change my way or get abusive..he asked for some info on why i was using certain terminology...and i presented it to him...and the basic physics of it is fairly simple...we have the force of gravity acting upon a mass that supposedly plummeted through 80 floors of structure with almost no resistance.

So show the numbers. Its fairly simple so what is keeping you?

reply to post by bsbray11


Well as time goes on more and more people are getting onto the same page...the OS just does not add up.

reply to post by bsbray11


Ah, the old any explosions must be demolition charges argument. No evidence of demolition was found. It is a favorite sport of the CD believers to search youtube for CD's of buildings and show how 1] buildings fall when demolished and 2] buildings make large clouds of dust when they fall. Those same videos also show the high-explosive brisant cutter charges detonating in obvious patterns of light and sound. These small inconvenient aspects are ignored by the CD folk while dust clouds and collapses are compared, ad nauseum. If you would like to prove that some singular boom, immediately before collapse, initiated it, that is fine by me. This means that the rest of the collapse was not aided by demolition and that gravity alone accounts for the speed of collapse. You would also show that the inward bowing of the exterior columns which appeared to initiate collapse was a mere effect and not a cause. Actually, your best case may be thermite placed on the floor trusses causing them to sag and initiate collapse. This would be consistent with all of the observations and would only require proving that thermite and not fire caused the beams to sag.

Originally posted by bsbray11
There any evidence that fire and plane damage alone did it either, that would meet your own demands from us.

To be consistent with the evidence, an initiator should cause a wall to bow inward immediately before collapse, either as cause or effect.

That would happen anyway if the core structure was compromised in any point around those floors. The hat truss would try to redistribute all of those loads on the perimeter columns, which would begin to fold in on themselves wherever they were weakest, unless you think the perimeter columns could support all of the building loads while damaged.

On the other hand, NIST's proposed mechanisms, of the trusses sagging and then somehow exerting more force to pull the columns inward, was not only never demonstrated but doesn't even make sense. When steel gets hot and sags like that it doesn't effectively become heavier too.

As evidence goes, let us review. We have aircraft penetrating the buildings and causing visible damage to exterior columns and unknown damage to interior structures. We have fires on multiple floors started by jet fuel and then fed by combustible building contents. We see collapse initiation following a bowing in of the exterior columns that have been exposed to the most fire. We have nearly identical events on nearly identical buiildings and the building that falls first was struck last. We see that the building that fell first was struck much lower which hints that the weight of the building above the impact might have something to do with the collapse. That is what we know. Based on this, explain the collapse.

Steel sagging does not change the weight but it changes the distance between core and exterior.

Originally posted by pteridine
Ah, the old any explosions must be demolition charges argument.

Nope. Nowhere in my post does it say anything remotely similar to "the explosions must have been demolition charges."

I was pointing out the fact that there were explosions, plenty of them, and yet when you're reminded of this you just say "they could be anything" and then proceed to ask why no one heard any explosions.


You never noticed that about your own "reasoning"? Going to lash out with another epically pseudo-intellectual rant instead of admitting it's a catch 22?

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Malcram

 

So you can't show it to be true using physics, this is one of those things you either just know or don't know. It is a gift really, only special people have it. Most of the most brilliant scientists miss this gift though, and are stupid enough to think there is no obvious reason to assume the structure will resist the mass.

That's just garbage. Show me a "brilliant scientist" who would claim that the structure below - any structure - will NOT resist "falling mass"! You keep demanding things of others, so I'd like to see evidence of the many "brilliant scientists" you say would be willing to claim such a ridiculous thing.

The only way the structure would not provide any resistance to the "falling mass" would be if it was blown to dust, so that it was - essentially - no longer there.

That is why it is rightly said that fatal flaw in the NIST collapse theory is TIME.